Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hylid frog genus Scinax ranges from southern Mexico to eastern Argentina. The 84 recognized species are currently arranged in five groups: the Scinax rubra, Scinax rostrata, Scinax catharinae, Scinax staufferi, and Scinax perpusilla species groups. Although a few species groups are distinctive, compelling evidence of monophyly is lacking for three groups, and their interrelationships remain virtually unknown. With the objective of testing the monophyly of the species groups and exploring their interrelationships, a cladistic analysis was performed, employing 86 characters from osteology, myology, adult and larval external morphology, reproductive biology, and karyotypes taken from 36 representative species of the five species groups plus eight outgroup taxa. The analysis of the resulting data matrix shows moderately well-supported (as assessed through Bremer support and parsimony jackknifing) S. catharinae and S. rostrata species groups. The S. staufferi species group is polyphyletic, as currently composed, given that some of its species are nested within the S. catharinae species group. The only representative of the S. perpusilla species group is the sister species of the S. catharinae species group. Although weakly supported, the representatives of the S. rostrata and S. staufferi species groups are nested, separately, within the S. rubra species group. In order to have a taxonomy consistent with these results, it is proposed not to recognize the S. rubra group but to recognize a more inclusive rubra clade that includes all studied exemplars of the former S. rubra group, plus some of the S. staufferi group and all of the S. rostrata group. Similarly, a catharinae clade is recognized, within which all studied exemplars of the S. catharinae group (that now includes Scinax berthae and Scinax agilis) and the one studied representative of the S. perpusilla group are included.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".